lordaction:Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: Nope, the devil is responsible for atheists. Atheists are just people that are suffering from demonic possession and while they are a danger to themselves and others - and should be locked up for protection - they can't help that they are broken people (just like gays).

So humans have no control over themselves? It's either God making us do good, or Satan making us do evil? All we are is powerless puppets held by the strings of dickish supreme beings? And everyone who doesn't think like you do and act like you do and believe what you do are the puppets of Satan? Are you sure God is the one holding your strings?

Well, people had free will and control until they engaged in actions that allowed themselves to controlled by Satan. Activities such as Oujii boards, smoking marijuanna, dancing, etc. So, it was their choice to have this happen to them. The Scriptures tell us that our bodies our Temples and evil can't come in to us just like vampires can't go into a church. By doing evil things it makes us not Temples anymore so the demons crawl in and control people after that.

So you admit that the idea of free will is a lie and humans are merely playthings of petty beings?

You can't choose to give up free will without having free will to begin with. These people HAD free will but chose to invite the devil into their lives. Atheists don't have free will because they are infested with demons, but Christians and other religious types who are moral have free will. Make sense?

So it's free will until you decide to kowtow to something, and then you lose your free will to that something. In that case, atheists still have their free will because they decided not to blindly follow a petty being who says he loves everything and created everything out of his love, yet will send nearly all of creation to an everlasting indescribable torment instead of simply exercising his infinite love and power to fix it.

Yeah, the guy who came up with the theory of evolution, which makes clear the benefits of a diverse population, is responsible for genocide with the goal of creating a less diverse population. That's the ticket.

When presented, from a creationist, with the claim that the theory of evolution directly influenced and resulted in the Holocaust, I request a demonstration that the theory that all extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry by a process of selection pressures affecting reproductive success logically allows for the conclusion "kill all Jews". I also specify that no other independent philosophical viewpoints be introduced, as doing so allows for the implication that the other independent philosophy, rather than evolution, leads to the "kill all Jews" conclusion.

Thus far, absolutely no creationist has been able to demonstrate such a logical connection.

Egoy3k:Instead of smart and funny buttons it would have been great to see a feature that allowed us to not see the posts of people we ignored when they are quoted by people who insist on feeding the trolls.

I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every thread pertinent to his special brand of Christian theology (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.--------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------------------------------

Hitler DID base a fair amount of his thoughts on the models and ideas brought forward by the American Eugenics Society. JP Morgan, Jr., William Kellogg, several founders of Planned Parenthood, were all members. Darwin's own son, Leonard wrote extensively and worked within the American Eugenics Society.

That being said, Darwin's observations about adaptation over time leading to divergent speciation were taken by many to mean a lot of different things. Man coming from monkeys being a popular trope, that has about as much basis in fact as my banging Felicia Day and Natalie Portman in a three way last night.

Marx would have been horrified at what was done with his work by Stalinists. What folks do with ideas is often far and away from the original work. Turning treatise on the origin of species into a raison d'être for the extermination of one's neighbors is not the fault of the author, but rather those who are looking for an excuse, and would like to have someone to back up their reasoning, to appear to be erudite and well considered. Sort of like looking to the Bible to excuse oneself for acting to deny folks rights and even their lives. Should we blame Catholicism for Hitler's rise as well? What about Stalin's own religious views? Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist, and thus we should attribute Teravada Buddhism for his crimes?

Darwin and his On the Origin of Species is often willfully misunderstood. About as often as Karl Marx's work, and Gods help me, even Ayn Rand's own work. Ayn still remains a vile example of a human, which she proved fairly often in her writing and her correspondence, but the foundations of Objectivism differ with Marxism and what has been dubbed Darwinism, in that they were based on published papers, and then those ideas were taken up by others, interpreted and used as inspiration for more work, while Rand was very much focused on making a living off the rubes that she convinced to make her their pet. Darwin and Marx were both scholars first, and their work was a foundation upon which others continued upon.

Like Darwin and Marx though, Rand has been taken as a symbol, and often scrubbed by those who would like to use her work to justify their own ends. Oddly enough, by Conservatives who routinely strip away her rejection of faith and religion of any sort, and ignoring what that rejection wrought within her own philosophy. Darwin and Marx, published scholarly work, that was interpreted and used and then taken up, and often willfully misquoted and skewed to meet their own agenda, in blatant disregard from the original work.

This isn't exactly a groundbreaking revelation, but it's important to put things in perspective, which Paul Johnson is trying to skew. His conclusions are very much based in a political agenda, as opposed to the role of biographer. He has an axe to grind, and is essentially looking to be a quote mill for others to use to back up their own agendas, while ignoring the real work, or the real man that he chose to focus upon.

Darwin's work wasn't an effort to secularize the world, nor was it an open affront to all that is Godly on this Earth, but a collection of observations that divorced themselves mysticism, and instead focused on what was readily apparent to those who would look at the world in an objective fashion. The ire, the vitriol, all that is focused on someone whose main "crime" was to look at things without imposition of preconception.

Pol Pot, as a Theravada Buddhist, one might at least point to that early education in looking to direct experience and a lack of blind faith, and at least argue that training led him down the road that he took. Likewise, one might also blame his rise to power on Napoleon II or the Jesuits. Looking to Darwin as a scapegoat is about as useful. Folks are looking for excuses, and they are looking for someone to blame, while ignoring the glaring inconsistencies in any sort of self examination.

Majick Thise:Hmm Hitler was a catholic turned protestant so I'm guessing no on that one. Can't speak to Stalin or his pot

Hitler's religion is kind of beside the point, to be honest. Catholics and Protestants have been very influential in developing evolutionary theory, and the notion that there is a necessary conflict between religion and science is a false dichotomy. But Hitler's attempt at genocide certainly has no support from natural selection, which is a theory about differential reproduction. If Hitler had actually read and understood Darwin, he would not have bothered trying to exterminate his "enemies," he would simply have encouraged the supposed "Aryans" to have more kids.

Stalin supported Lysenko, whose theories were fundamentally anti-Darwinian and had far more in common with Lamarck's notions. In fact, because of Lysenkoism, the field of genetics in Russia was held back for more than a generation.

I am not aware of Pol Pot ever even discussing the subject.

In any case, the notion that "the strong should kill the weak" or "violence is the supreme law of nature" is in direct conflict with Darwin's ideas, and derives much more coherently from Herbert Spencer's social theories than from anything in biology. Natural selection is all about who gets laid, not about who gets killed.